Memeorandum

May 17, 2006

Keep Those Goalposts Moving

For anybody still following Jason Leopold's "scoop" that Karl Rove has been indicted (earlier discussion and mockery here) - the goalposts are being moved yet again, and may slip off below the horizon.

Mr. Leopold informed us last Saturday that Rove had already been indicted and had been given "24 hours" to "to get his affairs in order". After nothing happened on Sunday, that was modified to "24 business hours". Although somewhat unusual, "business hours" is apparently used by service centers and shipping firms and seems to mean, roughly, if a customer calls by 2PM on a business day, they will get service by 2PM the following business day.

However, additional caveats were heaped on top of that Leopold modification, and some commenters seriously suggested that, assuming an 8 hour business day, "24 business hours" means 3 business days. Wow - I had made the same suggestion, but I at least was kidding.

Whatever - Steve Leser, having chatted with Mr. Leopold, now explains that Mr. Leopold stands by his story and:

I am going to hold off further
speculation until the end of the day on Friday, May 19, or until, how
shall I put it, events obviously dictate otherwise. I thank my readers
for being patient until then.

Oh, stop - I predicted a May 19 indictment as well. Does this mean I get to share credit with Leopold for his "scoop"?

Well, I may be wrong (No, really). In which case, I await the next explanation, equivocation, or prevarication.

What I no longer expect is for the Leopold apologists to say "We were wrong."

MORE: One suggestion that is no longer operative - Rove was told he would be indicted after the next episode of "24". However - maybe Rove was told to get his affairs in order within the next 24 billable hours. Although that would normally encompass only about 10 to 20 hours of human time.

I think Luskin was at the vet, then home nursing a sick cat...I think that Fitz was in Chicago with his office very busy ( a pretty huge trial starting Monday, a cooperation negotiation and the bank lady charges), and I think Wilson uses Jason because he knows JL will print anything he wants and JL will print anything Wilson tells him because he is no dummy and knows he gets a pass if he's accepting the "exalted one's" words...and I think JL is pretty smart here because no doubt he sold a few books and has Wilson by the balls...is what I think. WHo knows.

I dunno...seems like Raw Story would like to scrub/forget Leopold...I found this story on TM, searched it at RStory and when you actually click on it goes to a fundraiser letter...if you go this way though it is still there...dropped out queue I guess...but when you read the story you can see why

huh...the link through TM's site above doesn't work...you have to go to a TM Cached page to get to the Leopold article...don't media sites get blog swarmed (WAPO Blog comments) for doing this sort of thing?

The Talk Left lady seems like a nice person. I wanted to help her out but not enough to register for a TypePad account.

She has found someone who can reconcile Jason's account with something resembling reality. His name is Wayne Madsen.

Problem is Wayne makes Jason look like Walter Cronkite by comparison. I took a look around his websites and he speaks often of the neo-con cabal. I decided to leave when I read that the 7 July London bombings were actually a conspriracy by right wing Brits to get people angry at the Muslims in their midst.

Let's just say that an individual earns his bread through crime,snatching the bags off old ladies,items out of the back of cars.

One day tired of being beaten sensless by ladies who are from the "My body is a temple era",sharing a cramped room with a guy who calls him Fluffles,he hits on a new scam.
Make up shit and sell it,no contact with the boys in blue,live by the First instead of the Fifth.

Thanks, ts..Perhaps JL truly began then or perhaps he was writing elsewhere.
PUK, now there's a point.
It does strike me as odd that anyone would choose --or be forced to--leak hot stuff to someone with his bad reputation.I think you'd do it only if you wanted to spread lies because he is so easily discredited. And then LJ and Wm R Pitt revealed Wilson as JL's source giving away the game:They picked him for exactly that reason.

I'm still trying to figure out if Leopold is just lying or if he thinks he has real sources. That's why in the other thread I was mulling how Johnson and Wilson would end up as 'sources' for information about what's going on in the SP's office. I just don't see it.

On the one hand Leopold can't be lying unless you think Leopold's editors are liars too.

On the other hand it seems to be clear what he said isn't true, at least in its specifics.

Madsen's latest which has TL astir is that Luskin and Rove are in legal jeopardy! LOL..Next they can revive the famous the WH ate the emails story. Maybe we should call them the Cargo -Gate Cult, people yearning to revive the moment that the media brought down an elected President they couldn't beat at the polls. Luskin a subject..ROFL

On the other other hand Rick Moran is correct. Fitz is still investigating something and one must assume he thinks other 'crimes' have been committed. But what crimes?

It seems as though he's abandoned the idea that the original leak is prosecutable. Or has he? I suppose it is possible he is pursuing UGO. Or perhaps he is after someone else that he thinks lied or obstructed.

If he's not going after the original leak then he's just trolling for trumped up charges he can bring.

I say 'trumped up' because he must know by now who leaked what to whom and when along with the bare facts about Plame's status. If it is not the original leak he is pursuing then after all this time the only thing I can figure is he's running through exquisite detail of each person's testimony looking for tiny conflicts and whatnot.

If Fitz is just trolling for charges he can bring then TM is right Rove is most definately going to get it eventually. Hell he's been before the GJ 5 times. It is inevitable that if Fitz is going to bring a perjury charge for any Rove misstatment then he's going down.

Then agin, could it be someone else he is pursuing? And if so who could it be?

If these were real leakers with solid information and wanted to leak it...they would have gone to more than just this guy...they certainly would have found great friends at the New York Times, NBC News, etc. etc.

His source is probably the grade school teacher, of the kid, of a illegal alien housekeeper, who's Mom works for a friend of
the Dad, of one of the Junior attorneys, of another law firm, who's son has a job in the mailroom at PBB.

It's Fitzo de Mayo while it's still May
...and then we'll have to come up with something new in June. After that we'll have Fitzmas in July... or we'll have a Fitz of July celebration on Fitzipendence Day.

August will be tough since there are no holidays that month. Maybe it'll be the Fitz Days of August.

Then we'll have Fitzoween, then Fitzgiving... and then it'll be FITZMAS!!

Probably Fitz's great skill is breaking down criminal conspiracies. Maybe he'll figure out that the criminal conspiracy here revolved around Joe Wilson and not around anyone at the White House. He has a technique which apparently nearly unfailingly does reveal criminal conspiracies. The problem for him here, is that even though the White House response was conspiratorial, it probably wasn't criminal. And he's not getting after Joe, he's missing the elephant in the room, because his technique started in on the White House conspiracy. Maybe he'll learn and turn, and maybe not.

But if Joe is reduced to LJ, and JL, and hysteria, then there is rot.
=====================================

The only leaks of classified information I've seen in this case come from inside the CIA and the VIPS.
Fitz said when he announced he was convening a new gj that it was common practice to do so to deal with odds and ends that might arise.
Patton, that's a good point. If Fitz hadn't overstated the case and said "the first to leak", it's not clear that Woodward would have come forward because it would not have been clear that he had any relevant information.

I don't think it makes zero sense. After all GJ proceedings are secret and SP investigations are normally not very public affairs.

Clarice (from Madsen)-

"WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove."

What the heck is he talking about? Is it normal for an AG to be called before a GJ for a formal notification about an indictment of an administration official? That sounds like utter hooey to me.

That's beyond the fact that it would seem to me that if Rove were in imminent danger of indictment - and they knew it, which is what he's suggesting - he wouldn't be running around making speeches and generally being so visible.

Rove may be in danger but I don't buy any of the last Friday notice 24 hour yada yada horse hockey.

I'm kind of baffled about what's going on here. There are signs one way and signs the other.

I don't think it makes zero sense. After all GJ proceedings are secret"""

And how often is Fitz before the GJ??

It appears 95% of what he is doing is not in the GJ. And he certainly doesn't have a problem slantedly describing GJ testimony (Without the exact transcript)in public filings. Even making stuff up when it suites him.

The stupidest part of this story is that Rove was told he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order?? Why?? Was he going to be arrested and tossed into jail with no chance for bail?? Was Libby supposedly told to get his affairs in order in 24 hours? Don't remember anything like that happening. That sounds more like a TV script than anything that would actually be said. Seems ridiculous to me, but I am not in the law profession.

What is MOST ridiculous is Fitz is feeding the judges misinformed argument that he doesn't want to re-try the reasons we went to war.

WILSON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY WE WENT TO WAR.

The simpliest thing to point out is the President and VP never saw Wilsons report so it is meaningless.

The second, which maybe gets a little more complicated, is Wilson and he media buds have put him on a pedestal that somehow Bush and Cheney just didn't listen to him.

When the fact is, even if Wilson has great evidence and wrote a stunning report showing Iraq never even thought of pursuing yellowcake, the question is not why didn't Bush or Cheney listen, the question is WHY DIDN'T THE ANALYSTS IN THE CIA LISTEN AND CHANGE THEIR NIE, DUE TO THAT, WHICH THE COUNTRY'S LEADERHSIP ACTUALLY USES TO MAKE DECISIONS.

Tenent and the anaylsts themsleves have said Wilsons report was meaningless at best and at worst made the reports MORE likely.

And if you REALLY want a taste of the truth judge. This was all about John Kerrys run for President and the hangers on who wanted to hook up with his campaign and get prestigious government positions when Kerry won.

But Wilson is not even a drop in the OCEAN of the entire world
of data the CIA used over 15 years to assess Saddam Husseins WMD programs, period.

I'm still somewhat (although not totally) resistant to the idea that Fitz is just a hack or a boob. He could be of course, or could be behaving that way in this case.

His behavior in the investigation is what matters about that though not his behavior in the courtroom. With regard to the charges against Libby you can expect him to do any legal thing it takes to win. That's expected and perfectly normal for a prosecutor.

What is expected of a prosecutor is that his duty is to see that justice is done, and as Peter has ponted out, also that justice is seen to be done. He is failing on both counts, badly; winning appears to him as it did to Corrigan.
=====================================

OK so how is sitting in the virtual tent over at the Firedoggie site camping out awaiting the second coming of the Fitz? Would seem to me that with coffee running low, the biscuits being stale and mosquitos and horseflies providing the only real entertainment against the exceedingly boring monotony, that some of the faithful would be striking the colors, folding the tent and leaving the midnight vigil in the pumpkin patch since the Great Pumpkin did not show up again. But I have not had the courage to go look.

"WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.

WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House."

Key statement here is:

"as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper."

And another one regarding whether Luskin violated the laws on obstruction of justice.

And Rove started to make plans last year to move into the private sector (probably as a campaign consultant for the November elections).

Really? I expect as a private consultant Rove would make far more than he does on the government payroll and would find his legal fees less onerous. Moreover, once he left the government he could plead the Fifth and make Fitz find a real , rather than contrived crime, with which to charge him.

Interesting, Clarice, that's probably why Rove decided to stay with the WH. Although, the odds are high that he has quietly continued with his plans once he is indicted.

Jeralyn's post seems more plausible than Wayne's.

"So it's hearsay....A lawyer told a source of Madsen's who told Madsen. Wouldn't this lawyer be discovered, fired and face disciplinary action for leaking privileged information about a client of the firm?

If this lawyer-rat does exist, it sounds like he or she may also be one of Jason's sources, in which case, he or she gave different informaton to Jason than to Madsen's source. Considering that Madsen is a former NSA officer, and former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson and Joseph Wilson reportedly have received similar information, it's beginning to sound like a close-knit group of sources."

If this is the case, then Fitz may have the similar problems that CIA has - a very politically anti-Bush group of lawyers and investigators????

Wait a second, if you are being pursued but not a subject of the investigation, why wouldn't the Government be providing for his defense costs? Arguably everything that could be dealt with here is arising from his legal duties and he cooperated at the insistance of the President. I dont think he has legal bills, but some tell me what I am missing.

All of the government people involved have enormous legal bills and must pay them themselves. For some of the support staff who are young and still stuck with college bills it is a particularly costly tribulation.
I do believe that for those charged but cleared they have recourse against the government and will be repaid, but for those who were just questioned, they will not be.

Marsden on Marsden, in his own words. this will give some background on the guy:

As a political pundit, I have witnessed campaigns from the inside and outside. I supported John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary as a means to stop Bush, Ralph Nader in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, and John Kerry in 2004. I did not support Al Gore in 2000 because he chose a quasi-Republican and anti-labor, pro-corporation candidate, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate. I thought Al Gore should have run in 2004, sans Lieberman, because he has rediscovered the roots of the Democratic Party and would have more than likely beaten Bush in an energetic, pay back-oriented campaign. I rejected Nader's 2004 candidacy because of its destructive spoiler threat to Kerry and electoral and financial support from right-wing groups. I wrote OP EDs supporting John Edwards for Kerry's running mate and opposed the primary candidacy of Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary because of his affiliation with Acxiom and his foolhardy and dangerous Balkans War strategy during the Clinton administration. Bombing buildings in downtown Belgrade was no different than bombing them in downtown Baghdad -- period. I am one of the relatively few union journalists in Washington, DC -- National Writers Union -- AFL CIO Local 1961. I reject the Democratic Leadership Council because it is anti-labor. I am also opposed to the creation of a Latin American-style duopolistic oligarchy for the United States (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush, et cetera, ad nauseum).

This web site will continue to serve as a watchdog over the neo-conservative and Christian fundamentalist/dominionist movements and their dealings within both the Republican and Democratic parties. The threat is real. The penetration of both parties is real.

'I'm still trying to figure out if Leopold is just lying or if he thinks he has real sources.'

Oh, he believes his own nonsense. I speak from personal experience debating him, and let's just say he's more than a little slow on the uptake. He has quite a bit of trouble with syllogistic reasoning.

He knows beforehand what he wants to believe and grasps at whatever 'facts' he can find to reinforce that belief. Any contradictory evidence is simply ignored. Sorta like Fitzgerald.

He's really quite entertaining to debate--for a sadist like me. Over at Delong's blog during the Thomas White brouhaha, he blurted out that the NY Times--in investigating Krugman's use of his (Leopold's) supposedly incriminating White e-mail--found six editors who had worked with him in the past who told the Times they would never do so again.

During the course of our discussion it became obvious that Jason had a forged document. Which is something he's plead guilty to in a prior life. I suspect in both cases he'd convinced himself of the authenticity.

In the "You Don't Say" folder:
"The left-wing web site Truthout's most recent defense of its increasingly bogus-looking story includes this intriguing paragraph:
We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.
Who are Truthout's MSM collaborators? Their sudden appearance in this strange tale seems to indicate that the same sources who fed bunk info to Jason Leopold have also been talking to MSM reporters — probably for a lot longer than just the past few weeks. If so, who knows how much reporting about the Scooter Libby case could derive from these anonymous fabricators? " jerks circle

I'm convinced that the only reporter willing to listen to Wilson is our friend Leopold.
I think Wilson is madas hell that Rove has NOT been indicted and is now trying to make it happen by leaking false information.He's a loser on all counts.

In which case, mr, Joe's just increasingly deluded. Sooner or later Fitz can't help but notice the stench of conspiracy rising just outside his window. There's somenthing rotten in Denmark.
=========================

I cannot think of a better way to roll up a ratline between the Wilsonistas and the press than to float this and see where it goes...say to MSNBC and Schuster/Matthews, the one network Libby called to complain of its coverage.

Yeah I think Patrick points to what for me is a glaring problem with TalkLeft's logic.

If Fitz didn't have an indictment then he couldn't possibly know for sure what indictments he could get from the GJ. If he did then he'd be violating GJ secrecy rules by revealing it in a plea negotiation.

In one event Fitz is breaking the rules (no way) in the other he's trash talking and Luskin would know that. I doubt it.

And FWIW I don't buy Luskin under the gun at all. Lawyers don't do that. We've already had our dumb lawyer of the decade in Libby getting himself in this situation. There's no way a highly experienced criminal lawyer like Luskin put himself in the crosshairs.

Marsden has links to editorials he has written. Several on global warming, ( must be some kind of covert plot I guess ) melting cgaciers, opposed outer contnental drilling for natural gas, GOP is racist for advocating enforcement of immigation laws, etc.

Calls Michael Hayden "Hitler Hayden".

If you are keeping score this guy has hit the trifecta : Nader, Dean and Hitler ( when speaking about the administration ).

Lurker I gotta say I dont think you realize what Jonah is doing by publishing the e-mail. He is laughing at the guy. A self proclaimed looney lefty, says no no no never and the leftosphere is policing itself, but then in the same breath says "boy Jason sure sounds earnest and sincere." The whole irony is lost on the guy And YOU?

PUK, Hasn't the left been projecting all along? Take the example of the missing emails. Fitz said it was an archivist problem and the left jumped to the fore with a claim of document destruction or hiding (Hillary's missing billing file which showed up in her WH residence just after the proceedings in which it had been subpoenaed ended).

Claims that all the WH staff lied (Whitewater prosecutor saying Hillary lied before the gj but prosecutorial discretion compelled him not to bring charges because no DC jury would convict her.)

How much is this story worth@ I'm not sure of the exchange rate for thirty pieces of silver nowadays,but one thing is sure if this story were kosher,the journalist would be lunching with Pinch and negotiating the fee.
You have a scoop, you follow the money,you don't go to a penurious rag like Truthout

What Inman (ex-NSA Head) shared with some of us -- and this was a repeated assertion from comments that I have confirmed that he made in Austin -- is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

....................

But I do believe that Armitage was possibly a key source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen early in the Plame outing story and wrote such in November 2005. I don't have more information on whether Armitage was Novak's source or not -- and what legal consequences there might be, if any, if that was the case. I always assumed that Armitage was cooperating closely with Fitzgerald and would not be in any legal jeopardy.

But Inman stating this matters.

For those who attended the Princeton meetings who will no doubt read this and who may be surprised by my reporting Inman's comments -- do understand that I have been able to confirm that Admiral Inman made the same comments in other venues.

What Inman stating that Richard Armitage is the target of indictment is news and could have some veracity because of who he is.

Sue, maybe they all picked up some strange brain wasting disease while there..or maybe they all made money under the table selling yellowcake.Or perhaps the best people were always stationed in cities where Vuitton has shops, not in Niamey. Who knows?
________
Windansea , that's an interesting report. But if so, why has Fitz gone to such efforts to protect disclosure of Armitage's name?

Madsen made news before--riffing off a typo in the WaPo about the time of the President's arrival for Thanksgiving in Iraq, he insisted long after the WaPo's correction that the Pres arrived at breakfast time, and the entire dinner story was a phony photo op.

April 8, 2002
Anthrax and the Agency
Thinking the Unthinkable
By Wayne Madsen
Now that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has officially put the anthrax investigation on a back burner, it is time for Americans to think the unthinkable: that the FBI has never been keen to identify the perpetrator because that perpetrator may, in fact, be the U.S. Government itself. Evidence is mounting that the source of the anthrax was a top secret U.S. Army laboratory in Maryland and that the perpetrators involve high-level officials in the U.S. military and intelligence infrastructure.

is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

Heh, my suspicion...Would explain why Novak was called to the GJ in December after Woodward...(if that NYT's article still has not been corrected). Also that article said when Rove was called back he was asked questions concerning contacts with Novak...Rove said he learned the *name* "Plame" from Novak, Novak said he didn't know the name before he talked to Rove (which I thought was weird because he used *Valerie* a day before with the stranger on the street)

Anyways, I bet having talked to Woodward so early made something about his testimony about Novak square...who knows.

Now the TalkLeft posters are interpreting Wayne Marsden's article that Luskin is now a "subject".

Yeah that's a real tough interpretation to make. From Madsen:

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice."